By ,

Looker’s voice throughout is conversational and witty, it’s like recapping the film with friend afterwards, if your friend happens to be a film studies major or a pop culture fanboy/fangirl. Looker clearly had his qualms about the movie, but never to the extent where you feel as though his bashing seems baseless and aimless. The quips and observational humor are the highlights but there is a natural rhythm to them; there is never the sense that the writer went back and added them.

No need to look far or deep for the argument, it is clearly presented in plain view within the introductory paragraph. The writer grapples with the central notion that though it is a good film on its own right, it is still essentially a retread of the first with some new scenery and characters thrown in. He buttresses his point with multiple callbacks to particular scenes from both films that feel all too familiar.

The writer tantalizes and entices but never outright says anything concerning the film or the surprises that may lay ahead. This is an exemplary example of film criticism done correctly. Comparing it to a burlesque show might be over the top, but nonetheless the old axiom of “less is more” is definitely at play here as Catching Fire remains partially lit for the better part of the review.